US House Silent on British Hostage Crisis - Why?

Originally posted by justanothergangster
thats what theyve been saying on the news but it wouldnt be the first or the last time theyve blatantly lied to us

Just a hint for you Justanother, when you hear something always try and find a link to a soucre that backs up what you are saying. Yes we know they
lie but when they lie you have to be able to prove it first or someone might label you a disinformation agent. No I am not saying you are just
pointing out things that will help to prevent assumptions by others

can see how you can come to that conclusion, if you put aside the 20+ Iran has lied about it nuclear ambitions.

Come on man, what credibility do they have now?

They Iran Ist of all hand over co - ordinates to the UK Which put those sailors marines in Iraqi waters, then only 2 - 5 days later, change their
mind and say no these are the correct co-ordinate....

The they show on tv letters supposingly which has been writtenby the female held in captive, (which has been disputed by proffessional hand writters)
and a ex Iraqi prisoner who in captive, during the first gulf war...

Wouldnt you go along with what they say, if they told you that you would be freed shortly?

To me anyone scared thinking they are gonna be freed will go along with what ever someone else says........

Originally posted by shots
So it would seem you are correct the Geneva Convention only applies when the US is involved

I'm sorry, I must need reading glasses. The US was involved before this episode in some items that put into question our respect for the Geneva
Convention. I balked because it was wrong, and personally, because it was my country that I was proud enough of to know that we were better than that.

After the United States of America (the epitome of truth and justice worldwide) decided to crap on the Geneva Convention, and talk the talk of how
they don't have to listen to certain parts anymore, why can't any country do it? It doesn't make much sense to cry foul on the other team, when
they were doing what you have been doing during the whole game.

As for Congress, well what did you expect? They are no more useful to the general population than the last party was, because they serve their own
interests. It's all a game to both sides, and that, imo, is really all it boils down to. They get elected to play a game, and sometimes they can play
for blood.

I follow the markets a bit, and tend to adhere to the adage that concerning major political strategies...in the final analysis:"it's about the
money--stupid!"...me, not you.

Along with honoring a request from the UK, which allows them the dignity to deal publicly with this issue themselves ( I think most would agree that
it's appropriate for them to walk point on this one)...I'm motivated to consider the immediate economic consequences of a hard line from the White
House.

After losing 400+ points in February...news of the British hostage story saw oil to spike to a 6 month high...the Dollar falter, and the market began
to sputter again on inflationary concerns.

I believe that ANY involvement from the White House (language...soft, or strong) on this issue, will be interpreted by the market as a step closer to
US conflict with Iran...and an already insecure market, is sure to respond immediately to the negative.

While I don't believe that this is the only reason for the 'silence'...and that much is taking place behind the curtain, I do think that current US
economic vulnerability is worthy of consideration here. It kinda makes sense that the administration would like to see the situation resolved short of
direct, public US involvement....at least for the moment.

Am I completely whacked over here?

If so , maybe the good people of ATS can pull me back to center on this one.....

I believe that ANY involvement from the White House (language...soft, or strong) on this issue, will be interpreted by the market as a step closer to
US conflict with Iran...and an already insecure market, is sure to respond immediately to the negative.

Looking at the new thread on the Current Events Forum "Bush calls on Iran to free U.K. sailors"...guess we'll find out come opening bell.

Shots... you never read the source I porvided that explicitly says that the UK has asked the US to not make comments? The US was (rightly so) asked
to remain quiet while they sort it out. You asked for the source, I provided it. THAT is why we're being quiet... at the moment.

Originally posted by shots
Mean while the US with the exception of Bush is silent how pathetic is that?

I recall reports on the BBC suggesting that the British Government has asked the US to keep the rhetoric to a minimum on this one so as not to push
the Iranians into doing something irrational. If this is the case then the US is doing a pretty good job at honouring the UK's request so far (aside
from the President's outburst today

Did anyone else think he hesitated slightly before saying it, as if he was thinking he knew he shouldn't but
he really had to get across what he thought?)

It now seems that the British embassy in Tehran is at risk of being compromised by rioters. As you may recall, this happened to the Americans in
1979. Does anyone know if the British military garrison at that embassy will engage, or will they surrender if the compound is breached?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.